Anaconda_

Sorry man, that's just not true. It's a decision. They use a shotgun because they don't want a mic in the frame. I'm pretty sure that the official crew at the British Film Institute at the BFI Festival have access to reporter mics. And in this shot I count at least 3 shotguns all in a row. All of them are stupid because they've never heard of a reporter mic, or poor because they can't afford to spring for one. Idiots. I'm not saying they're the BEST option, nor am I saying you should hold a cable the way that blue one is being held. But they are a viable solution and for a 1 man crew who doesn't want the mic in shot, they'll do the job, and they'll do it well.

I missed this earlier, but yes its far from ideal - although I have done it myself of the rare occasion and the results have been more than just passable. Remember, he's not discussing the meaning of existence with the subjects. It's talking to a lot of people while on the go, grabbing them for a couple soundbites. With this setup though, you could hand the mic to the subject and ask them to hold it waist level and point it up at their chin and you'd get easily usable results. Of course that also adds other risks, more time, etc. etc. Another option I just thought of is the Tascam DR10SG - it's a shotgun/recorder and comes with a handy extension arm (aka micro boom?). You could mount this on the camera, get a widish lens and when you're filming the mic could be pretty close to the source. I'd imagine if he's using an MFT sensor, 18mm would get close enough, perhaps even too close.

I actually do mean a shotgun I regularly see reporters using shotguns in a shock mount for quick interviews. Granted they're not also using the camera, so can physically stand between the lens and the subject, but still be out of frame (over the shoulder shot). They hold the mic kind of chest height and get great sound, with the mic being out of shot. My idea was to try to replicate that with a 1 man crew. The suggestion was based on not wanting a mic on screen, not wanting a lav and being a one man crew - this really is the only other option and will be much better than a camera mounted mic. Here's the only image I can find, and they're not using a shock mount, but to give you an idea - the camera is probably between the two mics we can see. The black one though, is more than likely in shot, so there's no need to use the shotgun, but you get the idea. Personally, we always use a reporters mic, because there's no problem in having the mic in the shot in an noisey envornment. However I've heard many snarkey reporters complain to me and my reporter that the only reason to use one of those is to watermark the footage with your logo on the flag. I disagree.

And asking the questions for the interview? Sounds like the microphone he chooses is the least of worries. One thing I would suggest in this situation though is put the camera on a mono pod so you can move quickly and be stable with one hand. In the other hand he can hold a shotgun recorder in a shock mount and hold it just out of frame but arms length closer to the person on screen. You could do this with the Zoom options previously mentioned. Pair that setup with a wide-ish lens and he can certainly get close enough to pull it off, providing he can also check framing and focus.

Ah sorry, misread your first post about the cable. BMD have been using the mini XLRs for a while, the 4K Video Assist also has them, and I assume there isn't enough interest in plugging 3.5mm jacks into it to warrant them making a specific cable. I suppose you could make one though, as the wires inside would be the same whether its a big or small XLR on the end. If you have an electronics store nearby, and they have the right plugs, they'd make it for you. Assuming you're using 2 x 3.5mm microphones, another option could be to get a 3.5mm splitter and have them both going into the 3.5mm input on the camera. There might even be some out there that split the inputs so one is on the left and the other on the right of a stereo track. This would essentially give you 2 mono tracks if you split it again in post.

Like these? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer®-8Feet-Professional-Microphone-Female/dp/B013JVKWJU/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1544175643&sr=8-7&keywords=3.5mm+xlr https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stagg-SAC1MPSXF-Pro-Microphone-Cable/dp/B00824HLYY/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1544175643&sr=8-15&keywords=3.5mm+xlr https://www.amazon.co.uk/TISINO-Female-Microphone-Unbalanced-Stereo/dp/B077GX6XL9/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1544175643&sr=8-16&keywords=3.5mm+xlr https://www.amazon.co.uk/kenable-Stereo-Laptop-Female-Speaker-Black/dp/B003OSPSZC/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1544175643&sr=8-17&keywords=3.5mm+xlr Sorry for so many links

@webrunner5 - I'm a little confused as to your point. First you say people want 'sharp as heck', and then explain that 99% of photos and videos are on a smart phone. Which is why nobody cares about cinestuff. To me that sounds less like caring about, or not looking for a cine look and more about not wanting to carry a phone and a camera at the same time. For most users, the photos they take on their phones aren't even close to as sharp as the interviews you see in every Netflix documentary, for example. I would for sure call those documentaries cinematic and filmic. Same for those blockbusters. They're flashy, noisey and sharp, but are definitely cinematic. Now, if you could buy a phone that has a cineprofile and can take RAW photos, without having to download third party apps, I'm sure many people would never even use those features, but for many it would be a reason to buy that phone over a competitor's model. It all comes down to the best camera in the world is the one in your hand when you need it. For everyone in the western world, that's your phone. In that case, sharpness, filmic images, high iso, sensor size, lens mount etc. has nothing to do with it. Those who do want any of the above, need to work out if it's worth buying another device to achieve that. For us here it is, and 'filmic' is one of the main criteria, for a vast majority the phone will give passable results, but that doesn't mean it has a look or feel people are looking for. It's the difference between store bought lasagne and home made. Both edible, both will taste just fine, but with a little more effort, homemade will beat store bought any day. I don't have the vocabulary to explain why, but I know and appreciate the difference anyway.

In almost all of your examples, I think you’re wrong. Watch any feature documentary or music video made in the last 2 years or even longer. They all look an strive to look ‘cinematic’. Sports and (some) YouTube are the only parts I’d agree with you on. As for filming kids. I don’t film mine on 8mm, but do use 35mm film often for photos and film with cinelike profiles or BMD film. Why wouldn’t I if those are available to me? When BRAW is out for the pocket, I’ll more than likely use that exclusively. No one is going to decide against buying a camera because it has a cine profile, but many people would choose not to buy a certain model if it didn’t have one.

The GH5s also doesn’t have stabilization, so based on your comment, XT3 is the clear winner.

any chance of some footage Dave? You mention 120fps isn’t available in the retail release. Will Cinelike be available? How do you rate the still photos?

A new Leeming LUT has been made for the P4k: https://www.leeminglutone.com/

What's the codec etc. ? I assume some kind of h264 100mbps variant? How gradable is the footage?

It would be so great if when plugging your phone onto it, you could use the 3.5mm socket as a mic input and record from an external mic onto the video file. EDIT: I noticed in DJI's site that they have a microphone input accessory. @DaveAltizer Are you able to share any SOOC files?

Resolve 15.2.1 update was released today: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/nl/support/

I've not had any issues like that, and have used both 3.5mm and XLR extensively. A while back I did have an issue using phantom power, but that's kind of healed its self.

Which firmware do you downgrade to? I've tried all that are available on the Viltrox site, but the Image Stabalization option on the P4k is always greyed out. I also noticed they released a new firmware 3.2 a couple weeks back, but that still doesn't change the IS option.

Are there any negative aspects to this?

I can see it being an issue with the app, but for multi camera shoots, the difference will be minimal. But yeah, I see what you're saying and agree its worth thinking about and knowing before setting up and pressing go. On my 30mm f1.4(f1.0) I get a tick but no value change at f1.0/.1/.2/.3/.4 - So each value essentially has two exposures. And yes, now I look at it more closely, there is a slight difference to the picture with each tick. And lastly it does appear on the 24-105, but only on f11.

I just tested with my nifty fifty and have the same thing. If I'm on f1.3, and try to stop down a notch, I hear the lens tick, but the image remains the same and it still says f1.3. At f.11 though, I stop down a notch and the image gets darker but it still reads f.11. This isn't the case with 24-105 though. When I get home, I'll try my Sigma 30mm 1.4 (f1.0 with viltrox) and see what happens. Interesting find, but don't see it have too much impact on daily shooting.

The problem with mounting things on the top, is it limits going into undersling mode, or stops the camera from looking/tilting up. So low angles would be harder to achieve. The clearance at best of time is barely 1cm. As with all things, it’s a viable option depending on how, what and where you’re shooting.

I just tried out Canon 24-105 f4 on the Weebill and to my surprise, it balances (when adding extra weights onto the roll arm) and there's no restricted movement. and the gimbal holds up very well. The reason I mention it is because the similarly sized, but heavier Sigma 18-35 cannot balance as the camera knocks on the back motor, which restricts movement far too much. I assume that if the 24-105 balances, so can the 24-70. It's such a shame added weights are essential for this gimbal/camera setup, and depending on your lens you need more or less weight. For me and my uses, that's not really an issue, but it will certainly put a lot of people off buying it.

Here's a couple screen grabs of things I filming today. I shot in ProRes LT, because it's for 1080i broadcast. I'm over the moon every time I look at the stuff I've filmed with this camera. It always looks fantastic. These are improv actors at Comicon, so I had no control over the lighting, or over the actors - just filmed them as I saw them. Viltrox booster with Sigma 18-35.

Not quite the 300 off that op wanted, but €200 off the xt3 over here. Including battery grip https://www.kamera-express.nl/product/12269284/fujifilm-x-t3-body-zilver-vg-xt3-batterij-handgrip 150 off body only. https://www.kamera-express.nl/product/12269181/fujifilm-x-t3-body-zwart

It's not supported, and as far as I know, it's not supported on any gimbal. The camera controls don't work via USB, so it can't be supported unless the gimbal has bluetooth controls as well. Even the focus on the Ronin S doesn't work with the P4k - until they release the mechanical system. I was just showing that the camera can balance on the Weebill and the gimbal isn't 'too light' for the camera, as you said it was. Not trying to argue, just correcting information that I thought was incorrect. I'm extremely happy that the light camera works on the light gimbal, and when the follow focus is available in my country, I'll be even happier

Not true. Here's my test with it. Realtime from 2:10